are so far removed geographically. You and I could have some real fun arguing out JR, Johnny, Tommy and Jimmy - and you would not like Crosskey one bit. In my nocturnal musings last nite, I went to a Brit source, Plunknett, A Concise History of the Common Law, which is here, for his chapter on the development of legislative interpretation in the UK courts. This book is a great basic read - doesn't bury you as some of Maitland's stuff does. It and Max Sorenson's, Manual of Public Intetrnational Law (New York: St. Martin's Press, 1968; no url handy) have been sitting out in my living room since I've been posting legal stuff here.

--------------------------------------
As to Napoleon's Corporals,

That said, it is precisely the measure I would use for my Napoleon's corporals - intelligent but uneducated in legalese laymen; if they can understand it anybody should be able to, even lawyers.
What is "legalese" is another living room conversation over a 12-pack. Once upon a time, I read through the Internal Revenue Code and Regulations (then a 3 vol. set - so a long time ago) and understood what was written. Thus, I conclude that I can understand Plain English, Legalese and everything in between.

As I've said elsewhere, my personal approach is client intensive - I teach and I am taught; they learn and I learn. Reflecting on it, I use the reverse of your Napoleon's corporals approach. First, do I understand what I draft - sometimes I don't on second reading. Second, does my paralegal understand what I write - if not, why not. Third, does my client understand what I write - same drill. Also, the same drill for what comes in written by another lawyer, or layman for that matter.

The comments on this blog about lawyers and legalese are not uncommon - have heard all of them and consequent arguments at least once in my life. Having reflected on that more than once, my conclusion is that I may be somewhat "unconventional" in my personal approach - a good reason to be here - non ?

In any event, I also have concluded that my dog is not in the conventional "lawyers and legalese" bun brawls - which IMO consist of a lot of Bravo Sierra, or at least a lot of stuff that is immaterial to me personally. So, to quote that icon of Southern manhood, "Frankly, my dear, I don't give a damn."

-------------------------------------
With those digressions, we return to the topic at hand. There is more to the legislative history than what we find in the media accounts (big surprise).

The "supporting" language was not a committee effort, but a specific amendment by Sessions, support by Schumer and 2 cents by Leahy. So, what Sessions says is very relevant indeed. And here you find the two pages that includes comments by all three.

http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-...3&position=all

http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-...me=2004_record

What they said is not "legalese" (hell, maybe it is, since I understood it); but I can see where two different inferences could be formed. No change in my non-position position - I think this is a toss-up based on the Congressional Record. I've not a clue as to what Judge Urbina will do with this mixed fact and law issue.